Observational studyClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2018
Efficacy of fulvestrant in the treatment of postmenopausal women with endocrine-resistant advanced breast cancer in routine clinical practice.
Observational study in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Harnessing the ubiquitin-proteasome system: advances and challenges of PROTACs in breast cancer.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Predictors of fulvestrant long-term benefit in hormone receptor-positive/HER2 negative advanced breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Review
- Patterns of treatment and outcome with 500-mg fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a real-life multicenter Italian experience.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
20 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to describe the efficacy of fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive advanced/metastatic breast cancer who had disease progression after receiving anti-estrogen therapy in clinical practice, getting real-world data. MATERIALS AND
methodsMulticenter, retrospective, observational study conducted in Spain. Postmenopausal women with locally advanced/metastatic ER-positive breast cancer who received treatment with fulvestrant 500 mg after progression with a previous anti-estrogen therapy were eligible. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of clinical benefit (DoCB), and safety profile.
resultsA total of 263 women were evaluated (median age, 65.8 years). At a median follow-up of 21.5 months, median PFS and OS were 10.6 and 43.2 months, respectively. PFS according to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and ≥ 4th lines were 11.5, 10.6, 9.9, and 8.5 months, respectively (p = 0.0245). PFS in patients with visceral involvement was 10 months vs 10.6 months in patients without visceral involvement (p = 0.6604), 9.6 months in patients with high Ki67 vs 10 months in patients with low Ki67 (p = 0.7224), and 10.2 months in HER2+ patients vs 10.3 months in HER2- patients (p = 0.6809). The CBR was 56.5% and the DoCB was 18.4 months. The most frequently adverse events were injection site pain (10.3%) and musculoskeletal disorders (7.6%).
conclusionsFulvestrant 500 mg administered in clinical practice was shown to be effective (PFS, 10.6 months; CBR, 56.5%) and well tolerated, in accordance with previous trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.